Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree that who we vote for matters. We need politicians who protect our freedom.Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.
I disagree that it will be too late to rise up against a tyrannical government....until they confiscate our guns. THEN it will be too late.
No government wants to put down massive armed insurrection. They will do just enough to keep people calm, which is all we can hope for, but it's just barely enough.
Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.Aye yai yai. What a thread.
Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.
This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)
The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.
The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."
I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
You have no idea what I think.
No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
Why? Even with the mass killings by a few deranged idiots that the government allowed to get guns illegally the deaths due to gun violence is actually down.Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
... and the threat of overkill firepower...
... for the average citizen.
You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.Aye yai yai. What a thread.
Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.
This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)
The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.
The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."
The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.Aye yai yai. What a thread.
Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.
This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)
The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.
The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."
The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.
Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
You have no idea what I think.
No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
Fine you want evidence.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
June 8th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
August 17th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
August 24th 1789
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
Then you have the Presser case which says
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."
NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"
And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.Aye yai yai. What a thread.
Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.
This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)
The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.
The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."
The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.
Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
